>> state entries department officials testified on the u.s. relationship with russia and were asked about russian interference in elections. several senators reference the

recent microsoft claim alleging a russian plot targeting conservative think tanks and institutions. the senate foreign relations committee is chaired by senator bob corker. [inaudible conversations] >> the foreign relations committee will come to order. we want to thank our witnesses for being here today for the second in a a series of hearins on russia. .. >> what other promises or assurances were made, we've received no real readout, even in a classified setting

of this meeting. we like to understand the administration's assessment of a threat posed by russia to us, our allies and other countries and institutions around the world. finally, we need a better understanding of how russia sanctions this committee wrote last year on the senate passed by a vote of 98 to two despite strong objections from the white house are being implemented. russia has annexed crimea, occupied parts of georgia, interfered with elections including our own, violated the imf treaty, remains in violation, use chemical weapons to poison individuals in the united kingdom and purportedly hacked us utilities. these offenses are bad enough , but they leave us wondering what is next? what does the administration expect they will next do?

the past teaches us that even worse things may lay over the horizon if we fail to push back now and make clear to president nguyen that our nation is united from the very top to the bottom and standing against his destabilizing behavior open policy and in public posture. it is my hope that today you will reassure the members of this committee that our executive branch is doing all in its power to convince the russians not to continue testing our resolve. we thank you both again for your service to our country, for being here before this committee and we look forward to your testimony and with that i will turn to our distinguished ranking member bob mendez . >> i join you in your words and your concerns and for convening this hearing which i hope is part of a series of hearings on us policy toward the russian federation and i hope we can get clarity into

our policy and pursue oversight on legislation. more than a month after president trumps helsinki meeting with president putin we remain in the dark about what the two leaders discussed. we continue to hear more information from the russian government that our own. it's not only embarrassing but i believe his lack of transparency has implications for our lack of security. i'm not convinced those in need to know in our own executive branch have a full understanding of what happened. after more than three hours with the secretary, the committee has less insight than we did before the meeting. this administration has failed to answer requests or provide any information . i am formally requesting the department to provide all classified and unclassified able traffic related to the helsinki meeting memorandums and policy directives. i won't end time running through process ongoing transgressions, i think president trumps cabinet, director mattis and others

have warned that russia continues to undermine our democracy. russ is uses chemical weapons, invade the neighbors illegally annexes territory. assad's murderous regime relies on the kremlin and today we learn from microsoft that russian hackers continue their attempts to attack the united states senate and the venerable american tanks and ngos. i have been disappointed by the calls by some on the other side of the aisle to ignore these threats and seek accommodation with moscow, sending mixed signals to the kremlin only serve to undermine our sanctions regime. i do not currently see the value in meeting with sanctioned members of the russian dumont. they are sanctioned because of their support for the illegal annexation of crimea and should remain on our sanctions list until crimea

is returned to ukraine. i myself as an sanctioned by the russian government. i would be happy to meet with the duma when each of the goals of that law are accomplished. until then, i will stay from moscow. the administration points to his record while ignoring the president damaging rhetoric on russian policy. that said, i was pleased that secretary pompeo committed to work with us on new sanctions , outlining my bill with many on this committee. i'd like to hear in detail pacific provisions of the defending american security from kremlin aggression act of 2018 that you commit to working toward. i want your views on how these measures could impact the kremlin's decision-making calculus and how the sanctions bill would impact the intended target. the bill recognizes our efforts today have been insufficient and includes tough measures which we recognize have implications

for us companies and our allies. however, do we believe it is acceptable or in our national interest for us companies or those of our allies to be doing business in russia, particularly supporting the very sectors that have aided and invaded the kremlin's interference? it's not only ridiculous that president trump would champion a russian business council rather than condemn the kremlin's outright aggressions. i want to hear how you would support provisions to deepen cooperation on russian sanctions implementation. our regime is only as effective as our ability to increase oppression and i continue to believe our government is not properly constituted to address the hybrid threat proposed by russia. our bill would establish a fusion center to assess malign influence and called for the establishment of a sanctions coordinator in the senate. i look forward to your thoughts on how we can structure our national security institutions to maximize our ability to counter this threat and i'd like to hear about efforts to implement the current

sanctions law. the administration argued that mandatory new provisions have not been invoked because it is easier to use established executive order authorities. i'd like to hear a clear reason for this because as of now, i'm not convinced, specifically i'm interested in sections 225,226, 227, 238 and 34 . i strongly oppose the waiver provision which allows the administration under certain circumstances the way sanctions in section 231 on-duty defense and intelligence and in response i inserted a strong reporting requirement demanding the state department be more transparent on how it's implementing section 231 and i remain concerned that the conferees got at this important provision so i hope the state can convince me otherwise andi want to end with a note of thanks . i understand there are many within our government who are dedicated to a more assertive

approach with respect to russia that is clear eyed and well-intentioned and that the risk of making their jobs more difficult , i would say these individuals before us fall into that category. before calling the hearing and to our witnesses that you for your comments. our first witness is wes mitchell, assistant secretary for the bureau of eurasian affairs, us department of state. thank you for being here and i appreciate what you do for our country. our second witness is marshallbillingslea, secretary for us department of treasury, thank you for the same . we appreciate the fact you are sharing your thoughts and viewpoints today, mister billingslea, for the committee's benefit i understand you have return early from travel to be here and we thank you for that. we originally had assistant secretary chris ford scheduled for this hearing but we were asked that he be

available to testify before the senate banking committee and we have a simultaneous hearing happening and since we had these two outstanding witnesses , we relented and allowed chris to go over to the banking committee will that testimony will be taking place they are. you likely will be us before us again in the future to talk about other issues that he's responsible for again, we thank you. you know the order here, you could summarize your comments in about five minutes, any written materials you have with unanimous consent will be entered into the record and with that mister mitchell, if you would begin, we would appreciate it. >> german porter, thank you for inviting me to testify today. if you're told me, i want to start with a piece of welcome news unrelated to this morning's testimony. yesterday august 20 the us government removed jacob pauly, a former nokia camp guard up and notorious slave

labor camp for jews and not the occupied poland. while this process far longer than we wanted, the removal of this individual can bring comfort to others who suffered at the hands of those like pauline who did the bidding of the nazi regime. i will use my prepared comments today outline in brief form the overarching strategy of the united states towards the russian federation. the foundation for this strategy is provided by three documents, as directed and approved by the president. national security strategy, national defense strategy and russian integrated strategy. it's a recognition that america has entered a period of big power competition and in the us policies have grasped the scope of this emerging trend and adequately equipped our nation to succeed. the central aim of order and policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge systematically strengthening the military, economic and political dominance of american power.

our russian policy proceeds from the recognition that to be effective, us diplomacy must be back military power that is second to none, fully integrated with our instruments of power. to that end we have reversed years of cuts to the defense budget, the on the process of recapitalizing the nuclear arsenal, requesting $11 billion in the european initiative and working within nato to bring about $40 million in european defense spending.at the nato summit we established two new nato commands, new counter hybrid threat response teams and multitier initiatives to bolster the ability and the readiness of the alliance. in tandem we have work to degrade vladimir putin's ability to conduct aggression by imposing costs on the russian state and oligarchy that sustains it, building on secretary, secretary pompeo's testimony i have a list of actions the administration that has taken including 270 individuals, six diplomatic facilities flows and 65

removed from american soil. our actions are having an impact. research by the office of chief economists shows that sanctioned russian firms either revenue fall by a quarter, total asset valuation followed by half and a part of their employees. following the announcement of sanctions in april the russian company russo lost 30 percent of market value in the five days following our announcement of chemical and biological sanctions the ruble depreciated to its lowest level in two years. even as we have imposed on president peltier, we've been clear that the dialogue is open should put and take steps toward a credible path and in syria we created channels to avoid collisions between our forces, in ukraine we've maintained an effort under ambassador hurt folder to provide the means in which russia can live up to its agreement but in these areas it is up to russia, not america take the next step. we placed emphasis on

bolstering front-line europe and in the ukraine and georgia we liftedrestrictions on the acquisition of defense weapons, and the balkans we played a hands-on role in resolving the macedonia dispute and engaging with syria and kosovo . we are promoting energy diversification, fighting corruption and competing for hearts and minds. our strategy is animated by the realization that the threat from russia has evolved beyond being an external or military one and includes influence operations orchestrated by the kremlin in the heart of the western world area such activities are resource and directed from the highest levels of the russian state and is important to state what these campaigns are and are not about. they're not about a particular attack on us domestic political causes, it's not about right or left, not about american political philosophy. as recent facebook purges revealed, the russian hackers

have promoted the right and left, bombing of federal buildings and the overthrow of the us government. russia russia moments controversial causes and causes opposed to those causes. putin's thesis is the american constitution is an experiment that will fail if it is challenged in the right way from within. putin wants to break apart the american republic not by influencing an election or two but by systematically inflaming the faultlines in our society. accepting this is essential for developing a long-term response to the problem. the most dangerous thing we can do is politicize the challenge which would be a gift toputin. what russian efforts are about is geopolitics . nguyen and his self-justifying struggle for dominance. as stated by handbook of the russian armed forces, the goal is to carry out mass psychological campaigns against the population of a state in order to destabilize the society and the government and force that state to make decisions in

the interest of its opponents. doing so involves an evil toolkit of statecraft, first employed by the whole civic and soviet state, upgraded for the digital age.the state department takes this threat seriously. countering it over and covert forms is among the highest priorities. as a cochair of the russian influence through i work with general scott iraqi bring the resources of eur and you, the bear. under eur leadership, all 49 us missions located in europe and eurasia are required to develop and execute tailored action plans for rebuffing russian influence operations. within the bureau we recruited one of the architects of the global engagement center legislation on the staff of a member of this committee, formed a new position, the senior advisor for russian activities and trends to develop cross regional strategies. ur created a dedicated team

to create the russian maligned activities which since january has called out the kremlin on 112 occasions. we are working with our allies to uk to form an international coalition for coordinating efforts in this field and have requested over $380 million in security and economic assistance to the budget. we recognize congress as an important role to play in providing the resources to deal effectively with the russian problem set.as secretary pompeo made clear, we are committed to working with all of you to make our way against this problem and to align against russian strategies. thank you for inviting me today. i look forward to your questions secretary billingslea. >> distinguished members of the committee, it's great to be back. i got my start sitting on the bench back there 20 years ago and it's fantastic to appear before thiscommunity .

at the outset, those of us in the treasury department share the views that you and the ranking member and many in the senate have expressed regarding the significant and continuing national security threat . continuing occupation of crimea, current military operations in the ukraine, human rights abuses, attacks on cyber structure was the procurement of us technologies, violation of arms control treaties, support for the assad regimes of barbarism, assassination of dissidents and defectors including me unconscionable use of nerve agents in london and ongoing efforts to interfere in our sacrosanct election processes and those of our allies are some of the unacceptable behaviors of the putin regime. countering russian aggression

is a top priority for the treasury and the net effect of our actions over the past year and a half is an unprecedented level of financial pressure mounted against the kremlin, its proxy and key sectors of the russian economy. this administration has applied sanctions on 223 russert related entities and individuals ranging from the internet research agencies social media farms to fsb and gr you are actors who rushes date on the fence on bomber at which has been supplying billions of dollars worth of weaponry to the assad regime. additionally, treasury has issued findings pursuant to the patriot act against a major latvian tank that was laundering money for illicit activities a set of russia and we have engaged globally with partner nations to apply their anti-money-laundering regimes to target financial flows associated with russian organized crime and the maligned behavior of the kremlin. russian aggression is ongoing

but the treasury department has demonstrated to putin and his inner-circle that their behavior will not be tolerated and they will incur significant costs. on april 6 2018 we sanction russian oligarchs were part of the innermost circle along with companies they own or control. this included dara costa and unlike the previous administration which shied away, we've gone after the big fish. the result controlled by oleg daraposka is the largest producer of aluminum in the world. as a result of sanctions, daraposka's network has dropped by more than half. the share price of the holding companies that controls it was cut by nearly half on the london stock exchange on the day we took our actions. similarly, victor x over

network has dropped by 3 billion and his company has been forced to divest. when treasury acted in market moscow to stocks experience their biggest plunge in years and the ruble slipped and has not recovered. in all our measures are taking a direct toll on the wealth of the elites who served as kremlin processes. the growth has stagnated and there is limited willingness to invest in their oil and gas sector. the cost of borrowing from the russian government is way up , the central bank is forced to step in and prop up russian financial institutions. nor will we cease to ease up for as long as this maligned behavior persists. over the past two weeks we've imposed additional cost on russian entity and sanctioned the russian bank which has facilitated millions in transactions for north korea and designated a major russian port operator, maritime port operator or providing services to vessels

and evading sanctions. this morning about 30 minutes ago, we took further measures. we are designating 2 russia based shipping companies, conducting ship to ship transfers of oil and defiance of un resolutions and we are blocking six russian flag vessels. as part of our effort to counter russian cyber activities we are designating two more individuals and companies for their ongoing support to the russian fsb or cyber behavior so it is clear the treasury has been given a straightforward mandate combat russian aggression at every turn and i assure the committee we will continue to do so. mister chairman, i appreciate the testimony and to answer additional questions on this matter which i think we agree is of the utmost importance. with your permission i ask that my longer prepared remarks with a copy of the cuts that section 243 report on the russian financial behavior be submitted for the record and i look forward to answering questions i'm going

to ask a couple questions and reserve the rest of my time. i think that the vast majority of this committee and listening to the testimony the two of you would say this was a very fact-based realistic view of what is happening and presented by two very sober individuals. to understand russia and their actions to be as they are area i would ask the question, is your testimony today representative of the mainstream of the administrations from top to bottom? >> yes senator, i believe it is. it also reflects a policy that been recognizedby the president . >>senator, i agree with that . >> we obviously are putting top measures in place i advocate for more. we are seeing no behavior change, is that correct? they are still doing the same things they've been doing for

years. how we seen any behavior change as a result of what we're doing? >> i would not want to characterize that. in a classified setting, the intelligence community would be better positioned about what i would say is by the net weight of our actions and sanctions in particular, we are forcing the russians and specifically putin to reconsider his preferred strategy. the combined effect of our sanctions with our larger defense establishment is a cost disposition strategy and is important to remember that cost deposition is what won the cold war so i would argue nearly by increasing the cost in these sectors for the russian economy and state but also forcing them to their name and developing military technological advances to keep pace with the united states , we are absolutely having an impact on vladimir

putin's preferred strategy and again, i'm not being critical of what it is you're doing. it just came to me and i know there's discussion, that's the reason i'm asking these questions, there are discussions about what we might do to prevent further involvement in our elections, which look like there's no way to stop involvement in our elections. we see it happening today. we see ithappening with fringe groups . is there something that's being discussed within the administration that you believe may have even greater impact on what we are doing that might possibly arrange their behavior which is the point of all this . >> chairman, so we are constantly evaluating additional deployment of additional pressure tactics and sanctions there are active discussions underway on those matters. but i wouldn't want to telegraph those at this stage goes if we act, we wanted to have maximum financial impact . what i would offer is that we

not been applying the pressure we are applying on the regime, their behavior would be even further off the charts we are at least circumscribed their freedom to act and in the amount of resources they have on hand to counter us and to serve as a spoiler as they are attempting to do in so many cases around the globe whether were talking about popping up venezuela, what they're doing with weapons grade or a sod we are forcing them to make resource changes. likewise, we see clear indication that a number of the oligarchs who thought they would get bailed out by the regime for that they think it happen fact not been made whole and that's perhaps due to the fact that the regime itself is struggling for the kind of resources they would need to do that. >> i reserve the rest of my time, thank you editor menendez. >> mister chairman, i would like to take up the secretaries get in that we should have a classified

briefing on the impact of sanctions and behavioral change. that would be instructive to the community. >> we had one in banking and numbers of us attended that and i think generally speaking, i don't think it was classified but there hasn't been any behavior change but maybe we should have that for this committee also butgo ahead . >> mister secretary, i think that even listening to your response to the chairman's questions, we could generally agree that despite our best efforts, both congresses intentions to the law that was passed in the administrations enforcement that russia has continues to march on. both in destabilizing our democracy, other western democracies, continues to have a conflict in the eastern ukraine, continues to occupy crimea, as engaged actively in syria in a way that i think undermines our national interests so is that

a fair statement? >> i think it is a fair statement and i would add what director coates says. the assessment of the intelligence community that there's a pattern of presented pervasive influence . and the administration is responding with a clear eyed strategy . >> if we agree that as relates to all those changes, this course of conduct, you support stronger sanctions on the russian energy and banking sectors? >> i support the continuation of the administrations current approach which is the use the authority we have and we have a good track record to show for that. >> if you have the ability to have stronger sanctions on russia's banking sectors, would you welcome it? >> we made full use of all the authority at our disposal . >> we had the secretary of state here and he said he welcomed as a result of my

questioning, we didn't specify which one but he welcomed a new round of sanctions as it relates toward russia. i assume you are in agreement . >> i would continue using the authorities we have. we have excellent authorities and we also use the tools congress gives us. what i would say from the executive branch perspective is we need discretion with those sanctions. sanctions without discretion is the antithesis of strategy. we have to have the flexibility to use them in a matter that reflects reality and we've done a good job with that. >> i get concerned when i was seen both this and the previous administrations use waiver authority in a way that is far beyond discretion and undermines the intention of congress. how much discretion you end up having, you support the establishment of a sanctions ordination office at the state department? >> i would reserve opinion on

that matter. we are looking at how best to continue coordinating sanctions. >> we've heard complaints from european governments about the lack of coordination and i'd like to remand your attention. i'd like to ask you you support the center to coordinate policy against malign actors across the whole government? >> there is something to the idea of a mechanism or increasing coordination within government. it's a problem that has a lot of different aspects. there's a fiber aspect, a diplomatic aspect, and information aspect. my caveat would be i think it's important to go about this in a way that does not get in the swim lane of current lines of effort which i would argue are doing a good job. go i think our team is preparing some feedback on the legislation that, the ideas we've seen in the bill. >> we would look forward to that. is it still the policy of the united states to not

recognize the illegal annexation and occupation of crimea? i appreciate you saying that, because then i see the president go ahead and veto elements or say that the elements of the national defense authorization bill or the president reject senate approved language of nonrecognition of the occupation of crimea and worrisome. i don't know why you would do that when it is the policy of the administration. also, the secretary of state has said that and then you get a different message sent by the president. let me ask you one last question.under the chemical biological weapons act, the administration imposed sanctions for using chemical weapons against one of its own citizens, killing the brother of kim jong un.

the administration sanctioned the russian federation under the ctw act or using chemical weapons against one of its own citizens, a former spy and his daughter. he did not however designate the russian federation to be a statesponsor of terrorism . why not? what's the difference between these two situations? >> let me respond to the first part of what you said. the administration has been clear on crimea. >> .. i don't want to get ahead of process. i think this is something always important to keep in our pocket. we are looking at brushing

behavior in all regards. sanctions speak for themselves. depending on how russians respond, there could be a follow-on to that. i would just say, we reserve all options with regard to russia. >> there is no differentiation between what happened. [inaudible] which i applaud, and the russian federation, and there's no reason we should employ all the uses we have because we need to deter the russian federation from undermining our elections in continuing to violate the international order. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. me start by reiterating what the chair said about both of you. i'm glad to their. i thought they gave us a silver but very thoughtful and fact-based presentation today. my questions to are really about why, given all the things we are doing, including

sanctions, are we not making better progress. let me start by saying i appreciate that a couple weeks ago the secretary was able to make the findings of the investigation into the russian involvement in the attempted assassination for stair jay and his daughter. i think that's the sort of thing where we need to be frank and be clear i'd and hold russia accountable. i appreciate the fact that triggered some of the sanctions we talked about today, but there is so much more. we talked about what's going on in the eastern border of ukraine, question was just raised as to how we continue to feel about crimea. you talked about espionage, cyber attacks, propaganda campaigns, you talked about the active russian evasion, the influence operations at facebook recently talked about

, it's not about right or left politics, and i think you made a good point that when we break this down on a partisan basis here, in this body, and in this country, the only comes to help russia, not us, and i hope that we come in this committee have been able to avoid that and will continue too. today microsoft announced boarded russian backed federal tax on the iri, the international republic institute and also, so this is ongoing, even as we talk here today. i think sanctions are necessary, you talked about how sanctions are impacted, including on average the firm would lose one third of its employees if it was sanctioned , but it's honestly not working.

the way with that would like it to. i'm not thing it doesn't have impact and i think it's necessary so my question is to you, what would be more effective? either additional sanction pressures or non- pressures would be most effective in countering what is going on and specifically, i would like you to talk a little bit about the global engagement center. i'm not necessarily against it, but we just set up this global engagement center we spent a lot of time on legislation over the years working on this, the idea was to, at least with regard to pushback on the disinformation propaganda to be able to have better coordination be more effective in pushing back. we're frankly, much less resources than the russians use every day here in washington d.c. can you talk a little bit about that or others we could deal with what is obviously a continuing problem with russia. >> thank you for those

questions. let me just respond in brief to the few things you've asked for i'm not sure i would characterize the efforts we've made quite the way you have in terms of impact. i think the chilling effect on the russian economy and key sectors has been significant and measurable. since 2013, foreign direct investment has fallen by 80% which is a pretty stunning number. at this point were looking at it impact to the chilling effect of use of 231 of 8 - $10 billion in foreclosed arms deals, i think your brother.on pollutant and his view of the united states, not having a partisan ax to grind is apt. i don't think that hooten is a student of jefferson or adams. i think it's about neo- politics. microsoft revelations from yesterday show that, facebook expulsions show that very

clearly that the groups in question were fomenting violence from a fringe left perspective. i think we have to understand we have a competitor who sees this as strategic competition and is interested in dividing us internally. it's the strategy of chaos for strategic impact. i think it's incumbent on us to not politicize and make it partisan. we worked very closely with gc, the department has put $20 million of her own resources toward this effort in the. where were waiting for additional funds, were willie waiting to see our colleagues that moved the additional 40 million so we can see it up and running in a way that it was intended related to russian disinformation. >> you feel like you have the right staff on board to be able to punch back. >> i do. i think we have a very talented staff, some very capable and knowledgeable russia hands, we also work very closely at our bureau, in fact when our colleagues in russia came back, we made a excellent use of the talent

base to do a temporary plus up in some of those areas. imagine the capacities we've created including the star mongrel. it's the acronym for the role and a russian missile. i think it makes the point very clearly that we take it very seriously. i just think in general, the measurements you're using, appreciate all the hard work you're doing, the impact on the ruble and the impact in the economy and foreign investment for those are interesting and having impacted the questions is what is the consequence with regard to their both over and covert espionage propaganda, avoiding sanctions and so on. that's the question i have. can we see a measurable result in terms of the actual problems that we hope to be able to address. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i just want to concur with the leadership of this committee and think both of you for your service and your testimony today has been excellent and i think one that

we want to hear. i applaud your service. it has been 93 weeks since the presidential elections, and our intelligence community made a pretty quick assessment as to vladimir putin's involvement in our elections, bipartisan support in congress took very quick action on the statute recognizing the threat, i agree with senator portman, this committee and this congress has acted in a very bipartisan manner, recognizing the threat of russia. i want make that clear, and mr. mitchell, appreciate the fact, the policy that your numerator in, one that i personally support the way you articulated, indicating was directed by the president, the problem is the president has unfollowed it. that's the concern. there have been times where the president has made this a very partisan issue. we haven't, he has.

i think we need to really drill down on this a little bit more about how this policy is being implemented. you point out, in a very sobering way that he wants to break apart the american republic. that's a pretty sobering statement you made. totally consistent with report i offered on behalf of members of this committee in january that said that he is not only trying to compromise our democratic system here in america, but he has his eyes on democratic nations of europe, trying to bring them down as well. that's pretty sobering. our report pointed out that to counter that you need strong leadership, and i appreciate the fact that we've had arguments as to the effect of sanctions. one thing is clear to me, if you don't stand up to vladimir putin, he will take the situation and move even further. have we seen a change in

behavior the way we wanted, no, if we didn't pass the sanctions, could there have been even more activities, probably yes. he will fill a void. so, i think it's important for us to be very sober about his activities and what he is trying to do. let me get to this one point, this really concerns me. this is about the president's actions. i saw helsinki and the private actions is pulling in the narrative to him and his concept of how governments operate. compromising our democratic system by the manner in which that meeting took place. after the meeting, they were celebrating in moscow and they were scurrying in washington to try to figure out how to handle some of statements that were made. so first, try to assure me,

you say sanctions you need discussions, i understand that from the point of view of the executive branch of government community discretion for them to have a policy, but the problem is, one person can exercise that discretion, the president of the united states. we saw that the president might very well, we know there has been discussions on sanctions with mr. putin, et cetera, have you been briefed as to what happened in helsinki in regards to discussions on sanctions. >> i have been briefed on the appropriate information, i need to carry out my job but the president also been cleared which i would direct you to, that this, the question that you're asking, he was very clear about this. beyond that i would say he was very clear with regard to raising the unacceptability of

interference in our election. he's been very clear in his statements that he has not, at any point raise the possibility. >> he did that when he returned to washington. he did not do that in helsinki. >> with all do respect, i'm not going to litigate the specifics of every, the president had made but i will point you toward our policies which are directed to the president of the united states. i disagree with your overall characterization that the president has not followed his policies. these are his policies but there's no dissension between the ministration and the president, the president directed a russia strategy, a strategy for countering russia, the previous demonstration did not. i will point you to the 2010 strategy on russia. two hours as it relates to russia or point to what president obama said in moscow, he called russia a mighty river and said america wanted to ensure its rightful place among the great powers. >> i understand the policy right now. you are assuring this committee that unless russia changes its behavior we will not only maintain all of our sanctions, your looking for

ways to strengthen those sanctions against russia and are prepared to work with this committee to give you additional tools in order to make it clear that without tangible, specific results, the sanctions will be maintained and expanded. >> yes, and i think it's also clear from our actions of the past year end a half. >> i want to make one introduction before turning to the next person. my observation would be that some of the undisciplined comments that the president makes creates just as much trouble for these people as they do for us and the rest of our country. i may just give an example. the 232 terrorists issue, which i believe was an abuse of residence authority, we were you all involved in all in discussing the use of a national security waiver to put tariffs and kick place

which in your case usually affects the portfolio that you are working on, where you asked or was the state department asked about the use. >> there was an extensive enter agency discussion in process on that matter and they all had a voice in the process. >> and did you support a? >> with regard specifically to the european union? >> yes. >> what i supported was the president's trade policy overall. we informed that strategy, and i think as you see from the current dynamic in trade, it's a strategy that's working for. >> i will take a little more time. how is it working? >> we currently have a conversation underway, structured dialogue with the european union about a lowering of eu barriers to american products and services. >> is our understanding that the european union actually asked to go to zero tariffs when they met with the president and he did not want to do that. he wanted to keep it 25%

tariff in place on light trucks source us that is pushing for tariffs. >> the president has repeatedly, and publicly, in the company of european leaders pledge to go to zero, zero if they were willing to do this. they were willing to engage in the process until he supported 232. >> so you support a national security waiver to put tariffs in place on steel and aluminum. >> i support the president's policy. >> to the department recommend the use of 232 waiver? >> i'm not going to get into the deliberate process spread this is one of ministration, there's an interagency process for everything related to what you are asking about and we are on the same page. >> thank you. i think we've asked some important questions and the really important question that we have to ask is do sanctions change behavior. without the answer to that, i think we can't really decide

whether we want more sanctions until we decide whether sanctions work. that's another way of asking the question, do sentient work. i think with regard to iran when the world had sanctions, there's obviously evidence that work to bring iran to the negotiating table, in this case, there really is a question, do they work and do more sanctions work even better, i think one possibility is that they don't work, and if they don't work, what is the result of sanctions. one result might be one that drives russia more into the spirit of china and drives our countries more to this fear of russia or china and so i think there are arguments to be made that perhaps more sanctions are the way to go. sanctions are sort of the stick and the question is what is the carrot. i would say that one of the carrots might be considering whether or not we continue to insist that ukraine and georgia be in nato. i think if you really wanted to influence russia's

behavior, and you were talking in a one-to-one basis and you are to have some sort of agreement, i think an agreement not to have ukraine and georgia in nato might lead to less conflict in both ukraine and georgia. there is the argument that much of the military conflict is because they do seriously fear and worry and are concerned and opposed to having them in nato. it was george kennan who said in 1998 that if the west insist on pushing nato into eastern europe and into the surrounding countries around russia, that it will lead to the rise of militarism, nationalism and ultimately an aggressive leader. i think they had great impressions. some of things you see in the world are impressions to reactions that we take. with that being said, if we

are open to dialogue as mr. mitchell said in addition to both having the sanctions to stick but we still show an openness to dialogue, one of the things that i think we could and ought to consider is whether or not there's any element of sanctions where we would be willing to negotiate lessening of sanctions in exchange for a smaller change in behavior. if we wait for russia to leave crimea to lift any sanctions, we may be waiting until the end of time, but perhaps there are some sanctions i already we could see that are counterproductive, and the one i would throw out our sanctions that prevent the travel of legislators, and i think, even in the midst of adding more sanctions, we are to consider whether it's productive to dialogue to not have dialogue, even if you want to complain about election meddling, you would think you would want to meet with the russian legislators to complain about election meddling.

i think if we cut off dialogue between the legislators in russia and here, that i don't necessarily see that that's going to change their behavior but it does block off the ability to have dialogue with russia from their foreign relations to our foreign relations, and so i would just after the members of the committee at least think about it as the pushes toward more sanctions, whether or not we ought to at least think about whether or not we want to prevent the legislators from traveling here and then they do the same basically to our legislatures. there are things that despite our differences, but i think we should continue to talk about in this is the basis of my question, the new treaty was complete in 2010, expires at the end of 2020, i guess i would ask mr. mitchell, where do we stand on discussions with russia. we have ongoing discussion, negotiators, what is the status of the new treaty and our discussions with russia?

>> thank you for that question. if i could respond briefly to the first part of what you said, i agree with you that sanctions are a tool of strategic statecraft. right now the united states has 4190 sanctions worldwide and 580 against the russian federation. what that points us toward is the need for sanctions to always be linked with clear strategy. the u.s. has continued to be very specific about what change of behavior is needed in order for the sanctions to be lifted. with regard to new start, we been very clear that russia's violation of the inf treaty has treated the deficit of trust and that extends across the arms control ecosystem in all of our conversations with the russians. we're looking very carefully and closely at the question of the future, i would just say, any decision regarding an extension would be made at the appropriate time and we would

determine whether the treaty is in the national interest. >> we don't have a formal dialogue on either inf or new start with actual negotiators, or do way. >> what we have at present is a line of sight to continuing the process on strategic stability talks. will only know more about that once national 30 advisor comes back from his meeting later this week. >> before turning to senator sheen, i would make you aware and appreciate the perspective that we were in conversation with the former ambassador about potentially reestablishing the parliamentary discussions. in lieu of waving sanctions, what we had suggested was just meeting them in a neutral place, whether that's israel or some other place. there were discussions of that type until the election issues began in 2016.

there were discussions, there were no discussions of waving sanctions but certainly neutral territory to begin a dialogue, whether that something we want to discuss again, we can talk about that internally but those have taken place in the past. >> thank you both for being here. i applaud this policy position that you've outlined today. there was contradictory statement in action from the president because of his behavior in helsinki and his frequent tweets and failure to consistently acknowledge and their ongoing meddling in 2018.

until we see a change in behavior, we will continue to see confusion and concern and i'm not asking you to respond to that. that is a statement, not a question. have the sanctions actually been imposed from august 8. >> the sanctions in response to the nerve agent and the united kingdom, those have been imposed. they were imposed under state department authority and i would defer the secretary along that. we were in conversations to the runabout that. they range in severity and we are in continuing close

discussion. >> are we supporting foreign minister hunt call to impose greater sanctions in line with what the united states have done and are we working to encourage the eu to do that. >> yes we are, we are in close counterparts and have been and i would just add we were encouraged to see the europeans, partly because the u.s. engagement, created their own distinct chemical weapons sanctions authority which was a new and important step. >> i agree, i think that is positive. >> i offer on that. >> only if it's new, you are using my time. >> i'll refer back to you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. term itself, as we have discussed before, we had the opportunity to visit syria

along the turkish border and how much the syrian people have benefited from that, from throwing isis at that. we continue the stabilization funds for that part of syria. how does continuing to deny efforts. doesn't that give russia and assad and it ran in turkey all the opportunity.

[inaudible] how does that make sense in terms of a policy. >> thank you for the question. i appreciate the question. i would say nothing would be better from a russia perspective then to see usaid flowing in syria in many different regards. prior to a clear commitment to local process in geneva. if this is part of the stock russian approach to make stepson syria, to see the united states essentially bankrolled various forms of stabilization reconstruction before we see the russians do their part in committing. >> i'm not talking about all of syria - i understand the question. >> how does allowing other foreign influence to go into that area and undermine everything we've done to stabilize the region post isis to work with the democratic

forces, how does that benefit policy that says we would like to get people to the table? if anything, i think it would encourage the russians to go to the table because they see what we've been able to do, working with the syrian people there. >> what i would say is we take very seriously taxpayer resources as they relate to the syria problem in its entirety, we are cognizant with how that fits with the larger russia strategy and is not clear to me that the actions we are having our widening or creating vacuum for others. >> have you been a? >> no ma'am. >> i would encourage you to go. i think it would be very illuminating in terms of the difference that we've been able to make with her military on the ground, with other coalition forces, and to give up the playing field there, and to allow other influences to go back in is not in our

interest or the syrian people's interest. thank you mr. chair. >> senator young. >> secretary mitchell, i'd like to return to what you have indicated in your written statement is the thesis that the american constitution an experiment that will fail if challenged in the right way from within, who wants to break apart the republic, not by influencing the election but by systematically inflaming the perceived faultlines that exist within our society. it is indeed a very serious point. can you elaborate on that point? >> i think what we see in russian strategic behavior as it relates to operations is more or less consistent with standard russian operating procedure all the way back to the 1930s.

even before social media age, they beneficence the 60s or 70s. this is not particularly new in that regard part what is new is the two oh and the scale, the digitized of this and the fact that this is being directed from a very high level with a lot of state resources behind it. i think what we've seen in russian approach is very much not a partisan effort. i think it's a very cynical effort to pit pre-existing political camps against one another. i would just refer you to some of the groups that facebook made the decision to shut down, look at what they were promoting, look at what they stood for. these particular groups were on the far left, were very aware of the media from the far right but these were from the far left and they were putting money in organizational efforts behind groups that stood for really heinous and hideous causes inside the american policy.

we've seen, since january of last year after the president was elected, the russians have put money behind groups that have fomented anti- trump protests, including the one at madison square garden that drew thousands of people immediately after the election for the point is, from our competitor standpoint, the goal is to divide us internally. there is not any reflective political philosophy as it relates to american politics, and efforts to divide us. >> we have heard from members with various documents from the intelligence committee that the difference here is not an attempt to influence the united states but it is indeed in the tools, the extent to which the influence operations have been tried and it may also have something to do with the interaction between those tools in that particular moment in clinical history. secretary, i welcome you as well to this committee. it's great to have you.

you write about the support to the asad regime massacre of its own citizens are all unacceptable. my colleagues have already asked in a couple different ways whether or not the sanctions are working. have we seen improvement to any of these, election

interference on account of our implication of sanctions? >> senator, that's a great question. there's a difference between working and having an effect. our sanctions are working to the effect that there integrated into a larger strategy that the administration is executing to deal with these russian malign behaviors. our sanctions are also having a clear and measurable effects. their huge defense conglomerates which was selling the fighter jets and dropping chlorine on populations in syria, they are having a hard time getting paid for a number of those deals. we are impairing the effectiveness and constraining the regime and their freedom of maneuver but to the extent of which is all working depends on the synchronization of a lot of other measures. >> understand there ought to be a broader strategy. can you name some of the other

tools that are being implemented or utilized to effect change in these many continuing areas of challenge? perhaps you can tell us what additional steps we might take to implement this change. >> chairman, i'll kind of sneak in what i wanted to say to senator shee shaheen as well. in the capacity of this committee, the work that you do, it's incredibly important that we message very clearly to a number of european allies that it is crucial that they shore up their anti- money laundering regimes and clamp down and tighten down on how they regulate money coming out of russia. there is an enormous amount of money that is still being excellent traded from russia. to the extent that you have parliamentary relations with latvia or malta or other

offshore jurisdictions, i think reinforcing that message would be incredibly helpful. we need to clampdown globally on the money flows associated with the movement of large amounts of money out of russia. >> thank you. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i thought that our hearing was secretary pompeo was extraordinary and i frankly wish it had gotten more attention like that it was extraordinary from a number of aspects but chiefly in the argument that the sector was making to us that we should ignore what the president says and pay attention only to what the state department does. we are hearing a strain of that today, but the argument is extraordinary because it essentially admits that there are two different american form policies today. there's one articulated by the president and his statements that he makes standing next to vladimir putin or on his

twitter feed, just yesterday to reuters, the president once again said it might not have been the russians are interfered in the u.s. election, and then there is the much more mainstream foreign policy that's being administered in part by the two incredibly capable adriatic representatives of the american government getting here today. i wanted to pose a question to you secretary mitchell, in the context of how this plays out on the issue of propaganda, building off the question that the senator portman asked you, i thank you for the work that you've done to stand up to the gec while you're waiting for the transfer authority. you've worked with secretary pompeo and i agree it's going to make a difference. but, there was a really interesting coal about a week ago in this country that showed that 43% of republican voters believe the president should have the authority to

close news outlets engaged in bad behavior which is reflective of this obsession, especially over the past few weeks that the president has with what he called the enemy of the people. it is a really terrible term given the fact that it is rooted in a stalin era murderous campaign against journalists and anyone who opposed the russian government at that point. and so, i feel like you're doing some great stuff on the gec, you're doing some innovative work to push back on russian propaganda but then the president is handing the russian government a gift by his regular attacks on the free press which seems to endorse the same kind of work that vladimir putin is doing in his country and around the periphery. so i guess the question is, isn't his assault on the free and independent press inside russia and in the russian periphery emboldened by

president trump's regurgitation of the stalin era attacks on american media? >> thank you for your question senator, let me respond to the two things i've heard you say. the first, i want to push back on this idea that there is a strategy separate from the views of the president. this is his administration and his foreign policy. national defense strategy, directives we have from policy are coming from the president. the strategy overall i would characterize on russia in one sentence. continue raising the cost until russian aggression ceases well trying to keep dialogue open. i look at the president's efforts within the context of an administration that increasing defense spending by $700 billion, recapitalizing nuclear arsenal and has had 222 sanctions today on russian individuals and entities. in contrast to a previous administration that sought dialogue but did so while

cutting our military, talking about global zero in nuclear weapons. i think the context matters. i think the strategy documents send a very clear signal about what were trying to accomplish and i think it's the right approach. >> the president said it might not have been russia that interfered in the 2016 election. that is not the policy of the u.s. state department, right? that's what the president said yesterday. >> i have a list in front of me with dates that i'd be happy to for the record and where the president of the united states have been very clear about pushing back on russia. >> tell me how it plays out in the context of propaganda, and specifically talk about whether you have any fears about what the president's rhetoric on american free press being an enemy of the people has on your works. >> you think you're trying to do the right thing here in trying to work with us. if you think it's no problem tell me.

>> senator, a point of fact, i just like to be clear that with the president has said is not that the free press is the enemy of the people, he said take news is the enemy of the people. i think today's media is unprecedentedly political and the debate in this country has gone beyond the pale of what we seem in a very long time. as part of a healthy democracy. if what you're asking me too do is, on politics i will stick to my job which is policy. >> i want to lead you down this road because i know what you believe but i don't believe the press is the enemy of people and i just want make sure this committee understands we have a tough job trying to give you the resources while you are work is being compromised by the work of the president. we are all very appreciative.

i just think it's important to knowledge the separation between the president's rhetoric on the policies of the state departmen department. >> the foreign policy of the united states, we are executing the directives of the president, for. >> if i could, we do appreciate the work both of you do and you know that. i think what we see happening is what george cannon said in his telegram a long time ago back in 1946. this is what russia has been carrying out for years, and to foment this unity in our own country, but also this unity with other western powers, this has been a long-term, we had some glimmers of hope at point in time and it's been a long time since we've had those glimmers of hope, but it's basically been the same policy and i think sometimes the president comments create,

help create additional disunity with the west emma and i think that's what people are referring to here, and we know that makes your job difficult, but we have these policies that are put in place, we are unified behind those policies, you are unified, but our commander-in-chief continues to undermine those with either undisciplined comments or purposeful comments, and that's what the committee is referring too. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. they taught me more about the cost of this process and the. [inaudible] we will leave it at that. hopefully they will win one of those arguments in. secretary mitchell, in your prepared statement, i'll read the following quote. military power that is second to none, fully integrated with our allies and all of our

power, referring to the strength of america's one policy, lies in military power that is second to none, fully integrated and all instruments of power. is that correct? i agree with that, do you feel at this point in time in history we are at that point where we are fully integrated and we are fully working toward nda? i know it's not all funded yet but you think were on the right track. >> i think were on the right track, i think we disagree with our allies on a lot of areas of policy, but on a daily basis we see a lot more commonality between the united states and the european alleys and we see differences. >> it seems to me there's no policy that will work anyway must america strengthen the military is the ultimate fallback position. >> you wanted to be the 18 hole. >> i think it provides the basis in context for everything else you do in your strategy, and again, you can see this by contrasting this ministration with the previous initiation. if you have an attempt of

dialogue in russia in the form of reset, while you have sequestration underway, you are operating from a position of weakness. if you have an attempted dialogue with the russian federation in the context of a strong national defense where you have tremendous $700 trillion increase underway, i think you're operating from a position of strength. >> you're sending the right signal. there's no doubt about it. talk about nuclear weapons, on the new start treaty, i was in the senate in 2010 when we did the new start treaty, coming up in 2021, i think that treaty expires. is that correct? 2020? >> i think you asked a minute ago by senator paul if the administration had taken a position on moving forward with the negotiations for the reauthorization, have you? >> we have not. >> of the russians engaged in a conversation about it. >> have raised it on more than

one occasion. the russians canceled the previous attempt at strategic stability talks which we saw the broader indicator of where we are on arms control. as you probably know, they have some questions about. aspects of american compliance with new start that we see as being the various. the short answer to your question is that at this point there is not an administration position on what we will do a new start. we will make that decision at the appropriate time consistent with u.s. national interest. >> in the new start treaty we negotiate an identifier on warhead, how has that worked. >> i would want to provide a fuller response in a classified setting. >> i would like to have that if we could because in the end that will get the foundation, if we ever go far enough with north korea that were in effect removing nuclear weapons, we will have to have some systems like that to make sure we can check and verify and trust and verify. i think that was a good program we established with the new start treaty.

lastly, i have seen the horrible pictures on tv, almost every night in the last week of the gas and chemical weapons used in syria. i know the russians have pretty much gotten their lease established on the port, is that correct. >> they were meddling in syria for a lot of reasons but one was access to a port if i'm not mistaken. is that correct. >> i'm sorry, can you repeat the question. >> understand russians have negotiated access to syria that they sought very badly with the port to get out of the conflict with syria. is that correct? >> i still don't fully understand the question. >> in syria? >> yes, that's correct. >> did i say something wrong. >> no i just misunderstood. >> what you think is the future prospects in the syrian situation for russian continuing engagement, and further engagement by iran and syria? appears is going from a situation that got to a reasonable case of hope to an unreasonable position, what

you see. >> we see two things for the one hand you do see some modest constructive steps on the part of the russians. i would call particular attention to the engagement with israel looking at the security concerns. on the other hand, you see vladimir putin aiding and abetting, not supporting the geneva so unbalanced, russians are not being a constructive activ actor and syria. >> thank you both for your service. >> senator booker. >> senator markley. >> they are arguing over there. >> thank you for your testimony. in february the state department put out a statement that they enhance the safety and security in the u.s.

you haven't reached an agreement on whether it's going to be extended. is that something you feel comfortable continuing to assert. >> yes or. >> thank you. >> we have various reports circulating of the conversations that took place in the presidents one-on-one meeting with thelma put in. has been now been, for the assistance of the departmental interagency process, a sense of a clear memo of what should flow from those discussions? there was extensive debriefing by the president. that has trickled through in the form of policy directives, there has been. [inaudible] >> can use share a couple of policy directors that have come from those meetings. >> they are a continuation of previous policy.

with regard to ukraine, the centrality of russian complianc compliance, as the gateway of any forward movement. >> specifically things discussed by the president. >> the only agreement was an agreement for to national security council to me. >> that wasn't the question, but you can go on in confusing situation between the one-on-one meeting and the broader meeting, but it's not helpful enough that were asking. now let's turn to me and more. this saturday is the one year anniversary of the launch of the massive ethnic cleansing that took place, and right now we understand there's a state department report that is being held and possibly is going to be released. is it going to be released? i'm not sure which one of you would like to respond to that. >> it doesn't fai fall under

my area response ability but i follow the issue and will be happy to follow up with you. >> at treasury we are tracking this very closely. we have, just last week, two of the army officials involved , but not the heads of them which both canada and europe have sanctioned. we still haven't reached the same point that canada and europe reached far earlier. is it your sense that the state department report will be released on the anniversary. >> let me just share with you that the bipartisan members of this committee weighed in with the state department things specifically cc virginity with this one year anniversary. see this opportunity to release the report, see this opportunity to provide more aggressive sanctions, seize this opportunity to reinforce our support for bangladesh which is struggling during the

middle of a monsoon with a housing refugee camp for 700 additional growing up. seize this opportunity for the president to speak specifically to this issue because outside of a confidential setting, he hasn't done so. this is really a place in the world where there is massive genocide, ethnic cleansing, if america is to be respected in the world, our president needs to speak to the issue. i'll just ask each of you, do support the idea that the united states show some leadership in response to this ethnic cleansing? think you. >> thank you. >> the challenge we face on the election hacking continues to be substantial, but also, there's a lot of discussion about how russia is continuing to aggravate social divisions in this country, to basically set americans against americans on the host of

social issues. do you feel like were doing all we can to take on this effort? by russia to tear big holes in the social fabric of our nation? >> i do, we have a whole of government approach and a strong process, but i will add, as you probably heard, we welcome additional tools from congress and use them with all the appropriate authorities. >> on top of that senator, as we continue to refine the evidence on the entities and individuals were engaged in this kind of unacceptable behavior, were going to go after them. >> thank you very much. >> senator rich. >> thank you. gentlemen, thank you for your service and it has been very productive as are going through these things. first of all, i hope the american people will take note

of the effect, the direct effect that our sanctions have had so far. i think that was a really good explanation of this effect, which really isn't reported very widely in the national media, and expect the probably won't be this time, but the more exposure we can give them is really important. i think that, obviously, the sanctions have two purposes. one is a direct effect to inflict pain, but the real objective is to change conduct. you also did a good job, i think of listing the conduct that were attempting to change, and that is really a stunning lift of some awful things, that the russians are doing and continue to do, and i think one of the points that has been made here is the frustration with that that everybody has, that the sanctions aren't causing immediate change in conduct. i think our experience over the years has been that sanctions are not like a

kinetic, not like kinetic action. they don't spur immediate change in conduct, but really take time. i think the best example of that right now is that ancient have been placed on iran, and they've been placed for a long, long time, and again, one of the underreported stories is the effect that sanctions are having internally on the financial affairs in iran. it is stunning when you find out with the details of that are, but again for whatever reason, is not being reported. i think the same thing is going to take place here, and the question that i have for you is, when you do these sanctions, and it does inflict pain on a populace, it takes time for that pain to trickle up, if you would, and the populace start pressure the people who are actually in charge. obviously, when you're in a

country that is influenced more by a religious fervor, a radical religious fervor like it is in iran, that's different than in russia where the dollar, where money is really important. what are your, i'd like to hear each of your opinions on time that this is going to take because over the years, i know with that in this room and talked about patients that it takes as we were attempting to influence iran. i would like to hear your thoughts on the time that this will take before it does actually start to pressure the people at the top where there will be some change in behavior. mr. bill, can we start with you please? >> thank you, senator. you know, you raise exactly the key point which is that sanctions are designed to induce a change in behavior, and very seldom do we see that sanctions have an

instantaneous effect in that respect, but the cumulative effect over time can in fact be a noteworthy change of behavior, and that's what we are seeking to accomplish in all of the different sanctions regime that were implementing, whether were talking about executive orders related to. [inaudible] or in the case of russia, the challenge we face with russia is that were dealing with the marke markedly different scale here, in terms of the size of the economy. this is the world's 13th largest economy. at the trillion dollar economy , they are the foremost oil producer, the second largest oil exporter, they hold europe hostage to energy supply in so many respects, they also are deeply into the supply chains relating to copper, even titanium with us so it's a different calculus and a

different calibration than we would be dealing with the hermit kingdom of north korea or the iranians. so, i just recommend that the way we, i'll say, attacked the russia challenge, have to take this into account. >> mr. mitchell. >> i would concur with that, and i appreciate you raising that point. we always differentiate between the russian people and the russian state and oligarchy. i think the russian people have suffered enormously. we look for every way possible to engage the russian people, that's often difficult. i recently attended the commemoration in front of the russian embassy. i think is incredibly important keep up that engagement. i think your broader question is, there's a certain calculus on vladimir putin's part that he and those around him can weather to some extent, sanctions, because of the

regime. we've gone more deeply into the territory of going after those individuals than previous administration. we've gone after his son-in-law, my own view of this is when you see his popularity ratings falling by 15, 20% since he was elected, that of the main change comes immediately, but i think it does understand score that the pain is starting to have an effect i think this ministration has been clear that we are prepared to take additional steps. there is an escort tori ladder and will aware of what those additional steps would be needed to make an even bigger point. i think, if you look at our actions over the past year end half they have been progressive and we are willing to take the steps necessary to further penalize russian behavior. >> thank you both for what you are doing. you think you senator markey. thank you, mr. chairman. a russian spokesperson this morning said that they've been advised that there is no evidence of collusion between

russia and the united states in the election so they're clearly in denial, that continues to be there posture. we are hearing that their behavior continues and in fact maybe intensifying ten weeks before an election in the united states of america. so, if that's the case, how much more authority do you need to ratchet up the sanctions against russia. ten weeks ago. time is of the essence. do you intend on doing that given the evidence that you have right now? we don't have time for a long deliberative process. we have to make sure, especially in the final four weeks of the election that the sections are in place. >> the first part of what you said, i would just say i think the public statements from the russian government are deliberately up his good story.

i think the general official russian posture is one to deliberately mislead and say we have no idea what you are talking about. >> they are not responding, they are not listening, only additional sanction pain will get them to change their behavior. we need an intervention in the underlining pathology here. : : is the impact working? or are they just continuing in your opinion?

>> i would reference what director coates said and what director ray said, this is that this is broad and ongoing. we're not at the level we saw in the election.it is a very serious threat, and ongoing threats, we have an interagency process to confront it . >> i think it's time to have an interagency meeting 10 weeks out that makes the decisions as to whether or not we increased those sanctions. we go on to the discussion between mister putin and mister trump in the new stock treaty. can you tell us what happened in that discussion between the two of them? >> these were not deeply substantive discussions. the only agreement that came out of helsinki was for the

two national security council to meet which they will do next week. >> so there was no extensive discussion about new start between the two of them? >> mister president and the secretary have been clear on that. >> with regard to the imf treaty, where's was there a discussion between trump on that issue? >> i'm not sure what has been said publicly by the president and i want to respect executive prerogative and not get into the private details of aconversation between these two leaders . >> have you been briefed on any conversation that took place between trump and putin on the inf treaty? >> i need to do my job as it relates to russia. >> the staff, does that mean you have been briefed on the inf treaty. the president say to putin that russia is in violation of a treaty that deals with nuclear weapons or threats to the united states, did he say those words? >> i'm not aware of any

conversation devoted to inf. >> you were not know. >> doyou believe the inf treaty is in our national security interest? >> i do and i believe the russian compliance is in our interest . >> do you believe the same about the assad century. >> the same and a similar caveat. >> again, it's obvious that it should be extended. i was pleased to see this morning's sanctions against russia for aiding north korea . that was a positive step but i still worry about enforcing existing sanctions on north korean slave labor, recent reports report russia is using north korean labor regularly, mister billingslea, are you considering additional sanctions against russia because of their use of that north korean labor? >> thanks for the question. we continue to press together with the department of state russia to abide by the un resolutions which call for

alina of labor licenses and the return of those workers out of russia. we are concerned about a slow roll that we are observing in connection with that and are extremely concerned about other asian behaviors. >> are you considering new sanctions? >> on russia, we are. >> because of this issue. >> i have to get back toyou on that . >> i'll get back to you on that.i don't want to telegraph my punches publicly but we arelooking at scenarios across the board . >> thank you. >> just to give you a chance mister mitchell to clean up, when you said the elections, the interference right now is not as it was in 2016, what you're saying is the interference we are seeing is less intense, is that correct? >> that's correct and i was referencing director coates's comment . >> thank you mister chairman,

thanks to both of you for being here and i want to commend the state department for following up on senator markey's comments when it comes to north korea but i would point out traditional articles in the wall street journal and others talk about the depth of continued acceptance into russia of north korean laborers. it doesn't seem to be lessening and in fact it seems to be increasing and i hope you would take a look mister billingslea at the report that identifies names and businesses that are asking for korean translators, hiring oriented translators to deal with the number of foreign workers they have coming in. we know as much as 80 percent of the salary that north korean workers are supposed to receive is being siphoned off and going to prop up the kim jong un regime for a grand total of $2 billion that goes directly to

nefarious activities continues to pursue including reports today from the un watchdog that there is no indication that north korea is slowing down or stopping its nuclear program if we're going to have and say that we have a doctrine of maximum pressure, perhaps it's time we start saying publicly we are going to sanction these companies in russia, mine and allow around the globe who continue to violate sanctions when it comes to north korea and if we are serious about trying to get russia and china to follow through, perhaps we can take a look at the names of these companies and start sanctioning them. here's one right here, i'm not going to be able to pronounce it but zinco, these are companies that continue to take north korean laborers and it would be nice to see the treasury to sanction them. it was signed by the president, section 3.4

requires the termination for 90 days whether north korea should be designated as a state-sponsored terrorism, that determination was made november 20, saying north korea as supported acts of international terrorism including assassinations on foreign soil. february 22, 2018 the united states determined under the warfare of elimination act of 1991 that the government of north korea used a chemical warfare agent to assassinate kim jong un's half-brother. the treasury department imposed sanctions against north korea for that attack. on march 4, the russian government attempted to assassinate to russian nationals in the united kingdom, on august 8 the state department determined the russian federation as use chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used legal weapons against its own nationals inthe salisbury attack . the treasury department

imposed sanctions against russia for that attack and on april 4 i introduced along with senator menendez language identical to the provisions guarding north korean requiring the state department to make determinations whether russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terror . language was included in the security from kremlin aggression act introduced by senators graham on august 2. i wrote an op-ed not too long ago, the moral case for such a designation is sound, designation of russia as a state sponsor of terror. russia has invaded georgia and ukraine, supports the murderous regime of assad and is engaged in active information warfare against western democracies including meddling in the us elections and as we talked about here, continuing attempts to influence the elections going forward. do you believe the russian federation as repeatedly

supported acts of international terrorism including assassinations on foreign soil, mister billingslea, yes,sir no ? >> they definitely engaged in outrageous behavior that is not acceptable. >> they've engaged in assassinations on foreignsoil . >> i agree with the premise of your question, i don't want to get ahead of our processes on what we do with that but there's no contesting thefact of russian behavior . >> you believe the salisbury attack is not the only instance of russian assassinations on foreign soil? >> secretary billingslea. >> we need to go into closed session but i'd be comfortable in saying they have engaged in this behavior more than once . >> you believe that russia's actions undermine us security, global peace and security, secretary billingslea? >> i do. >> you believe the kremlin has violated international law around the globe?

would you support a process that would allow the state department 90 days to determine whether or not russia should be designated as a date monster of terror. >> i would need more information and want to consult with ourteam . i understand the direction you are going with this and the appropriate way to go about it would be when our team comes over and gives a structured response to some of the legislation being considered . >> that's a protocol on designation, but it is important to know if we have any evidence that a russian actor is supporting a terrorist, we will go after them regardless of date sponsor level designations. >> secretary billingslea, what sanctions would russia face?

>> if the state department were to determine that there are a state sponsor? i would say there would not be an immediate wave of actions. we have to work with the department of state to identify which prongs within the russian government would be identified, much the way we've done in other cases . >> thank you, senator rubio. >> thank you for being here, i want to lay the framework but i think it's embedded in your testimony. one of the things, certainly two things we debated broadly on the committee and beyond, the first is that i don't think we fully accept yet that we are back to a historically normal era with power competition. we've been in a polar world and we have difficulties with certain countries, now we have a competitor in china and we have at least in the military realm a near competitor in certain spheres deal politically in russia and in that realm, the second thing we struggle with is that informational warfare is not warfare, it is warfare by different means . the difference now is

propaganda and efforts to divide, demoralize, confuse the enemy. we can do it electronically now so what's happening now is not an effort to help republicans, democrats, vegetarians, it's an effort to help divide us against each other andweaken us internally from within . and in terms of our policy, you see some of the simplistic way people approach it, one group argues we shouldn't be talking at all which i think is despite my deep antagonism towards vladimir putin and what he represents and things he's done, i don't want to see a shooting war because it would be catastrophic so that should keep you engaged and talking and working where possible within the context of understanding you are in a competition more of his making than ours but one that he believes in is a zero-sum game where he can only get stronger if we get weaker and the flipside is, we are nicer to each other, we would be able to get along better

which is also false because at the end it goesback to what i said. he views it as a zero-sum competition and the only way he can be stronger is to restore russia to greatness . and so in that competition everything were debating is about tactics. he can't compete with us economically or militarily in terms of protecting power all over the world but what they do very intelligently is a low investment in military intervention in exchange for influence in the middle east so he's now becoming a powerbroker in syria and libya and he's got enough airplanes and troops on the ground to make a difference there and is trying to finagle his way into north korea, you want to be a player in that. you see in europe there's an article about a growing number of european countries for left and right parties in power that are potentially moving those countriescloser, he went to the wedding , is it the austrian crime minister?

and then of course the asymmetrical means we are discussing which are part of it. to them it's a low-cost way of getting into our, in our heads and in our society and dividing usagainst each other . if we can accept the fact that we are in a sort of, really in a great power competition with china and in some ways a similar competition with russia, they don't pose the same economic challenges china but nonetheless, we have to address it. if we can wrap our brains around the fact that we are in a competition and the one thing we want to do is what we did in the cold war and that is avoid a third world war , then we can begin to decide what we do. we punish what they've done but we also tried to deter what they've done which is a key component of the cold war, the fact that most parties understood the price was so high for a nuclear exchange that neither party

pursued it despite a couple close calls. this is why i along with senator van hollen put up this idea of laying out ahead of time specifically what the penalties would be. what is the price if putin does this again and it should have to be a high enough price so he doesn't do it again and the notion of it is if you know ahead of time how much it's going to cost you, you might be less likely to do it, i can't guarantee you won't but i can guarantee if he doesn't defy the imf, he will and you happen to use either one of you about the role deterrence can play in terms of changing the cost-benefit analysis that vladimir putin undertakes before he conducts what he did in 2016 and again in 2018 or beyond? >> i agree with the premise of your question and characterizing this as a power competition. the terms are critical so when the administration has gone after daripaska, that

sends a clear message. we could do more collectively to look at cyber deterrence. there's a growing awareness that we're not doing enough in that regard but i think the toolkit that can be brought to our disposal to increase deterrence are supportive of that . there's a lot that is very positive. it moves in the right directionthere's some aspect of it we are not comfortable with , that can be mandated single intelligence official rather than a senate confirmed cabinet official is problematic. as i said earlier, we take the view that national security is important for diplomacy. our team is preparing doctored responses for legislation in the coming days and look to engage with you more closely but i agree overall with what you said, deterrence is critical i know i'm over time, but i recognize that speaking for

senator van hollen that if we want to pass this law there are changes we need to make and we need the administration to sign it. our goal is to pass a bill that secures, not havethe product become law per se but it needs to be stronger .>> senator menendez. >> thank you mister chair, i have a few other questions. secretary billingslea, the expectations among the senate was that you would continue to impose sanctions on oligarchs clearly you have decided to diminishpressure. you haven't designated any oligarchs since april 6 . you designated as tony and banks and there are reports you made the list themselves. what signal does that send to the kremlin? these actions seem to be more aligned with an accommodating or disturbing rhetoric the president has versus a tougher approach. >> i am unaware of any intention to the list are

resolved. if anything we are seeking to have daripaska removed from control. as a way forward. we are far from easing up. we continue to accelerate. if we look at the cyber sanctions booktv.org. >> i hate to interrupt you for a moment i want to focus specifically onoligarchs . there has been no designation since april 6 and you have delisted estonia banks. you may not be intending to but one of the elements of becoming a russian oligarchs. [inaudible] this is a satellite universe of people who support him and maybe even hold his money at the

end of the day so i hope you will create a greater focus on that because that is critical towards our goals. let me also ask you by directing questions, the obama administration imposed sanctions on the g are you for 2016 election. how many of those officers accounts have frozen, do you know? >> on the g are you officers, i don't have thatinformation . >> and the offices as well, how much money did those individuals you lose as a result of any sanctions? >> i will have to take that for the record. >> secretary mitchell, i have a high regard for you. it gets a little diminished when you do things i think are political in nature. youmentioned a mighty river comments as it relates to the previous administration . that was before crimea or the invasion, that was before the obama administration b sanctions against russia or

its invasion of crimea, that was before when the president ultimately went ahead and decided russia is not part of the g today. it's also became aware russia was interfering with our actions, but it did pursue sanctions against the g are you and the fsb and that's why i made a commitment reaffirming the commitment to georgia. i'm not sure that that type of comparison that you attempted to make is in our collective interest the end of the day, but i dowant to ask you , the president at the helsinki press conference announced the establishment of a high-level working group to include leaders from russia and the united states. i thought it was our policy to put economic pressure on

the kremlin to stop attacking our collections. it's war crimes in syria, why are we promoting business ties with a regime that we are actively trying to dissent? [inaudible] i have limited time so you can respond to my question. >> i think helsinki, what came out of the other than an agreement for the security council to meet was to explore the concept of two things. a business council of some kind to be determined and an academic exchange of track two dartmouth type thing like during the cold war. we're assessing what this breathing be thecomposition on either of these . >> it seems counterintuitive we are trying to affect the russian economy and trying to create business . increasingly, russia provides a vital source or oil and

aviation fuel in north korea and there have been reports that at times when china has slowed its exports, russia has stepped in to fill the breach so what is part of a broader strategy to increase russian influence in asia or complicate our efforts to deal with the constraints on pyongyang? what are your thoughts? >> russia is not being helpful in regards to north korea. on one hand they are part of the un security council consensus that's critical for maximum pressure . what i would say is on an ongoing basis, we are looking carefully whether it's russian behavior on dvr today, syria across the board, we are looking at an ongoing basis on all these things for responding to it . >> mister billingslea

congratulations, i got just got notification you've been nominated to be the undersecretary for civilian security, democracyand human rights . >> thank you sir. >> thank you senator menendez. >> we hold lots of hearings here, very seldom we get as clear and direct answers as we got from you. you are both great representatives in the united states on this committee and i appreciate your service on behalf of the american people, thank you for that. the, that concludes this hearing and the record will stay open for questions for the record until 5 pm tomorrow. with that, this meeting is adjourned . >>.

[inaudible]

>> both the house and senate return for legislative work on tuesday. in the house, members returning from their work periods. they're expected to consider bills on student loan debt counseling, exporting liquid natural gas and swear in a new member. republican troy balderson who won the special election for ohio's 12th district. senators will continue work on nominations with votes on the securities and exchange commission member and several district court judges. watch the house live on c-span and the senate live on c-span2. >> c-span: where history

unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and the public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. iraq's ambassador to the us and the kurdistan ambassador talk about isis attacks against religious and ethnic minorities and we will hear about the current security conditions and their concerns about another isis resurgence once the us leaves a rack. the hudson institute hosted this event. >> i am nina shea and i direct the center for religious freedom at the hudson institute and on behalf of the hudson center and on behalf of the brookings group on christians and religious pluralism which is housed at the center, and also on behalf of our cosponsor today, the religious freedom institute, i welcome everyone. thank you all for coming.